Road Safety Strategy Unveiled

[Observer]

He got held up ;-)

 

(Doubt that part would make the history class though)

[=^..^=]

So simply put you can't prove that you are in the majority can you ?

 

As far as the statistics go they are from the Govt report (if you want the links flick back through the topic). They are there in black and white for you to read. The reason it is relevant is because that figure represents over 10% of all the deaths on the island in the last 10 years. 2002 had the highest fatality rate of any year. The figures are there for death and serious injuries in unrestricted and in restricted areas, ages, types of vehicles etc.

 

It seems to me that the people who have most (but not all I will concede) of the reasoned points tend to be in the anti speed limit group. From the pro limit group we get heresay, annecdotal evidence and 'I think therefore it must be right.'

 

We have pointed out many facts and figures which show we have less than the EU rate for fatalities, we can point out that road improvements lead to traffic fatalities, we can point out that since the introduction of safety cameras in the UK that the roads have not become safer (despite them becoming safer up to that point) If you don't want to listen then stick your head in the sand and believe that the Safety Initiative will make you safer when the facts show that it won't.

 

It is very frustrating when I want safer road and you want safer roads - but I can't convince you that a policy based on punative measures will not achieve as much as a policy based on education.

 

Education would prevent reckless speeding and would have considerable advantages outside of the un-restricted areas such as in towns and in residential areas. How often do you see people speeding in a 20 zone where kids are playing ? how often do you see people driving too fast for the conditions?

 

Speed limits would just mean you have the same idiots doing the same stupid xxxx they are doing now...

 

Ans - I can't get a hard on in my leathers. Perhaps you can in your leather gimp costume but I don't think I'd want my todger swinging in the breeze at 10 mph much less at higher speeds...

[Observer]

Ans - I can't get a hard on in my leathers. Perhaps you can in your leather gimp costume...............

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

WHAT??????!!!!!!????????

 

ROFLMAO!

[ans]

Still waiting for a sensible reason that you'd need to go 100mph instead of 70. I suspect I'll be waiting a long time as there isn't one that isn't 'Waaa, I want to go faaaaaaast' in essense. What it all boils down to is little boys wanting to go fast in their penis extension motors and they're kicking their heels because it's going to be taken away from them.

 

And my gimp costume is open crotch as well you know.

[Observer]

And my gimp costume is open crotch as well you know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thumbnail picture please!

[Ripsaw]

I think "hard ons" should be left to those who spend £2000 tarting up their £200 Novas and Fiestas.

 

I introduced the notion of limiting "everyone's" drinking habits as a way to kerb the actions of a minority.

 

I don't see the point of getting wrecked and falling over, or worse still, using alcohol as an excuse for behaving out of character and knocking seven bells out of a passing stranger. It happens, and it happens a lot yet I'd still decry such legislation as illconceived, just as I do the assumption that anyone and everyone who drives at 72mph is a mindless homocidal manical with a death wish.

 

There are plenty of idiots on this Island that should be stopped from inflicting their stupidity onto others, drivers and drinkers.

 

I've already said that it is no major deal if a speed limit is introduced, I've gone 20 years with a clean licence, I'm not about to start risking it now or any time in the foreseeable future. If the law is passed, so be it, I'll obey it just as I do the 'Homezone' limits (even though I often think I'm the only person on the Island who does) and all other speed limits and laws.

 

So why am I happy to make myself sound like an 'no limit' supporter even though I am actually very respectful of the laws that govern my life?

 

Simple, because as long as I can be overtaken by 3 cars in row in rain on Douglas Prom, or I see people on my right indicating right at roundabouts then go straight on, or accelerate through gaps to beat me even though I have right of way, when people can obstruct a traffic lane by parking on double yellows, return to their car to shove some stuff on the back seat then walk off again to another shop across the road.... blah blah blah... then I don't question the need for a speed limit, but I do question what the hell is being done with the current crop of laws that are being so blatently ignored.

 

I am of the opinion that an open road with a dry surface in clear visability can be driven on quite safely at a speed higher that 60 or 70mph. If a car is weaving in and out of traffic, or diving too fast when conditions are saying slow down, then throw the book at them. I know what it is like to have a flat tyre on the Mountain Road in thick fog. I was scared for my own and the lives of others as cars and vans appeared from the gloom roughly 10 metres away driving way too fast for the conditions.

 

Kneeling by the road with a jack and wheel brace isn't a nice feeling when you can see faces scrunching up as they hit their brakes. I can honestly say that I have never tried so hard to change a wheel as fast as I did that morning.

 

Attitudes and complacency cause accidents. The misguided belief that because you know a road like the back of your hand you are immune from encountering problems.

 

Introducing a national speed limit may be a step in the right direction, I'm not going to argue with that. It is however only one small component of a big problem. I think we would all do well to remember that when we are discussing a topic as important as people's lives.

 

I think that the target of a 2% reduction in deaths and injuries is way short of the figure that they should be aiming for. Better and consistent enforcement of current legislation is already more than capable of exceding that figure. There are 29 pages in the Initiative, that is 29 pages of figures and theories designed to do what current law and guidlines are failing to do.

 

Where will new laws suceede when the more than capable old ones are failing? If this question isn't addressed, then what will be the benefit of the new laws? Speed cameras are part of the same proposal as the limits, speed cameras won't catch those who drive dangerously but reduce speed as they pass the camera, they won't catch cars that swerve between lanes to make up one or two car lengths in queues, they won't stop drivers riding up the back bumpers of other motorists.

 

The majority of problems could be sorted out right now if the Departments of Transport and Home Affairs wanted to. Why do they feel the need to gain public attention with consultations that delay the actions that should be already ongoing?

[Cret]

Do you realise how ridiculous you sound in this thread?

 

The proposal to introduce a speed limit is A COMPROMISE. We, the decent people, are meeting you lot more than half way. We have practically, giving you everything you want. 70 miles an hour on the mountain! 60 elsewhere! It is insanity! But we are letting you have get away with it. Yet you are so entrenched in your selfish ways that you are going to whine and moan until the law comes into place.  Normally, sane people are going to come up with increasingly bizarre comparisons. And when the law is finally introduced you are gonna break it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's a beauty! Ho ho ho.

 

Still waiting for a sensible reason that you'd need to go 100mph instead of 70. I suspect I'll be waiting a long time as there isn't one that isn't 'Waaa, I want to go faaaaaaast' in essense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That may perceivably be the case, but the same can be said that no-one has yet given any kind of good reason or explanation of exactly how a new limit will make the slightest scrap of difference anyway.

 

That looks like a no score draw to me.

[ans]

That may perceivably be the case, but the same can be said that no-one has yet given any kind of good reason or explanation of exactly how a new limit will make the slightest scrap of difference anyway. 

 

People with no respect for the law can be caught and punished, thus removing irresponsible drivers from the roads.

 

1-0, your move....creep.

[Cret]

People with no respect for the law can be caught and punished, thus removing irresponsible drivers from the roads.

 

1-0, your move....creep.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Like they in theory are already then? Except they aren't in general so that's no different at all then. Still nil-nil as far as I can see.

 

But I like the Robocop reference.

[monkey_magic]

There would be fewer people going out onto public roads in their cars/on their bikes with the sole intention of seeing how fast they can drive. In particular kids who've just passed their test and are taking daddy's car out with their mates.

[Dave the Cardboard Box]

Here are some facts -

 

Throughout the sixties, the fatal accident figures were always averaging between 8 - 10 per year.

 

They still do.

 

 

Despite the fact that in the sixties, the cars were more unstable, and had poorer brakes and handling.

 

The car with the 'wow' factor in those days was the Triumph Herald, which could reach 77 mph. Most cars could only just scrape up to seventy.

 

Now, with FOUR times the vehicle population, the majority of cars are easily able to exceed 100mph, and much more, - there are the same number of fatal accidents.

 

If speed was really a major factor, fatalities would have increased by nearly double because of the extra speed available, and by four times to account for the number of vehicles.

 

It hasn't happened, fatalities have remained steady for decades.

 

The extra stability and braking available make modern cars safer than forty years ago.

 

Speed is only occasionally, and quite rarely a factor in fatal accidents involving cars.

 

And to Ans - riding a bike fast is nothing to do with sex or phallic dreams. If you saw my bike you would understand that.

 

It is to do with having a rush of experience hitting you head-on - like bungee jumping, or parachute jumping - some people need a mass of sensations hurtling into their consciousness to make them more alive.

 

I know I do. It's like when I recklessly decide to mix Weetabix with Shredded Wheat in the SAME bowl.

[sirdick]

It is to do with having a rush of experience hitting you head-on

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or a car, or a tractor...

[monkey_magic]

Why are fatal accidents the only ones that count?

[Cret]

There would be fewer people going out onto public roads in their cars/on their bikes with the sole intention of seeing how fast they can drive.  In particular kids who've just passed their test and are taking daddy's car out with their mates.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry dude but I don't think that's the case at all because the sort of young & reckless people who drive fast for that kind of reason are likely to do so regardless of whether there's a speed limit or not just like they do at the moment. For instance a hell of a lot of people seem to pay no attention at all to the 50 limit between fairy bridge & douglas. Proof in itself that regardless of a limit being in place, the 'bad' drivers will just ignore any new limits in the same way, ergo the bad drivers are still just as dangerous and exactly the same risks are present then as they are now.

[monkey_magic]

A hell of a lot of people also drive up to the Creg to see if they can get 100mph when they come back down again, or drive to the Ballamodha straight to see what they can get. I know many, many friends who did it as 17 year old kids. It's part of being that age (I remember it well) - and what's to put them off? It's justified in many young minds by the fact that it's legal. Of course there are still going to be people who break a 70mph limit, but fewer than there are now.